That Document.

On Priesthood and Those with Homosexual Tendencies, that is.  Here's my translation of what the document says, for those of you who don't feel like reading the whole thing (which is pretty short).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction:  We have already taught plenty about homosexuality.  This document answers only one question:  "whether to admit to the seminary and to holy orders candidates who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies."

I.  Only men can be priests.  The priest represents Christ as "head, shepherd, and spouse" to the Church.  The priest makes a gift of his whole personhood to the Church.  Therefore only mature men who can relate correctly to both men and women may be ordained.

II.  Homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies are different.  Homosexual acts are inherently wrong.  Homosexual tendencies are disorders which are difficult for many who suffer them.  Today we must state clearly that men who have sexual contact with other men, who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or who "support the so-called 'gay culture'" cannot enter the seminary or be ordained.

This is because men who have sexual contact with other men, who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or who support the so-called "gay culture" are hindered from relating correctly to men and women.  Bad things can happen if men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are ordained. 

Not all homosexual tendencies are deep-seated.  Some are the expression of a transitory problem, for example, of immaturity.  Such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate [which is a prerequisite for ordination as a priest].

III.   Desire alone doesn't give a man the right to be a priest.  The Church gets to decide, from among the candidates, who enters the seminary, how seminarians are formed, and who gets to be ordained.  It's the bishop's or the superior's responsibility, and if he has a serious doubt about a candidate, he mustn't admit him to Holy Orders.   The rector of the seminary must tell the bishop or superior what he thinks of each candidate.  The spiritual director is bound by secrecy, but he has the duty to try to dissuade an unsuitable candidate from seeking ordination.  The candidate has the most responsibility and he has to be honest and trust the judgment of his superiors.  Dishonesty does not characterize someone who believes he is called to serve Christ and his Church.

Conclusion:  Bishops, bishops' conferences, and superiors must observe this document for the good of the candidates and to make sure that we always have good priests.

----------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so what here is new?  Only a clarification: 

   --- Homosexual tendencies (by which I think they mean same-sex attraction, or SSA) and homosexual contact in the past do not automatically exclude a man from ordination.  If a man has not had sexual contact with other males for three years; and if he can show that his SSA is insignificant, or that it has been outgrown, or that it does not prevent him from relating correctly to men and to women; and if the latter has been true for at least three years --- then he may be admitted to the diaconate.

  --- But if the candidate has "deep-seated homosexual tendencies," or is currently sexually active as a homosexual, or "supports the so-called 'gay culture'" at this time, he may not be ordained.  Period.

On first reading, I thought that there were two serious flaws in the document:  a failure to define the term "deep-seated," and a failure to define "the so-called 'gay culture.'"  Surely these definitions are necessary to make the appropriate distinctions? 

But on further thought, I decided that given the other content of the document, the terms are clear enough.   

What is deep-seated?  If a candidate can overcome his homosexual tendencies and remain victorious over them for three years, then they're not deep-seated and he can be ordained, assuming he meets other qualifications.  If he hasn't done that yet, they might be, and he shouldn't be ordained.

And what is the "support of gay culture" that makes otherwise suitable candidates unsuitable?  At minimum, to "support" something is to believe in it.  It might also mean political support. What sort of beliefs and politics would render an otherwise suitable person unsuitable for the priesthood?  Only heretical beliefs; only politics contrary to Church moral teachings.  Therefore, the document must mean that those who contradict Church teaching in their beliefs and politics, relative to homosexuality and homosexual persons, can't be ordained. 

So what this comes down to is:  To be ordained a priest, you have to be faithful to Church teachings, and you can't be currently struggling with homosexuality or permanently self-identified as a homosexual.

Comments

[Valerie]

"But if the candidate has "deep-seated homosexual tendencies," or is currently sexually active as a homosexual"

Don't you think a man who is "currently sexually active", regardless of the orientation, would NOT be the best candidate for celibate priesthood? That means he does not take Church teaching on the sacrament of matrimony and licit sexual relations seriously.

[Erin]

Of course. But this post is strictly about the contents of the document in question, and the document strictly covers homosexual tendencies.

I think that part of the point of this document is to stress, perhaps for the first time, that homosexual unchastity is not equivalent to heterosexual unchastity for the purposes of considering a candidate's suitability for the priesthood. An example may be the requirement that a candidate have overcome homosexual tendencies for a period of at least three years. I am not aware of any requirement that a candidate for the priesthood have been chaste for a full three years prior to ordination.